I still can't make sense of the comment. Even from Delay's twisted wingnut point of view, what in the world could be wrong with doing research on the internet?

The only thing that I can think of is that it's some kind of 'winger code-speak designed to insinuate that Kennedy is a pervert. Otherwise, I've got nothing.

I don't think he should expect much in the way of support from Lexus/Nexus & West Law the next time he is up for election.

This is the same argument made by Justice Scalia after the Death Penalty for minors decision was handed down. Justice Scalia argued that the majority of S.C. Justices based their opinion on International Law rather than Constitutional law, and (If Kennedy wrote the majority opinion) it stated this much, saying very few nations continue with capital punishment for juveniles.

If Delay is going to bitch, he could at least be original and come up with his own argument.

This is an absolutely terrific development, for the same reasons that Scalia's campaign of abuse and contempt (in written opinions) for O'Connor has been: it pushes them away from the three wingnuts into a much greater willingness to consider and often accept the arguments of the four Court moderates (there are no progressives left).

As far as the Court's political dynamics go, it's hard to think of something more helpful than the wingnuts attacking Kennedy. I expect, Matt, that it is some kind of mangled lunatic code-speak getting at not only Kennedy's stance on the capital punishment for minors case, but also the Texas sodomy case. What's great about this is that Kennedy has defected from the wingnuts less frequently than O'Connor. A smart wingnut would try to find ways to lure him back to his initial instincts; an idiot like DeLay beats up on Kennedy for his few apostasies, and thus guarantees more of them, as it's Kennedy's only way to hit back.

God, could we just keep DeLay around for a little while longer. His positions are just too good for liberals and moderates in the field of public opinion. How long are the Republicans going to let him shoot himself and the Party in the foot? The more he speaks, the more he appears like a ranting and raging idiot. Kennedy using the Internet? WTF

So...

We’ve got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That’s just outrageous,” DeLay told Fox News Radio.

My questen to dear ol' Tom is: How do you justify decisions based on Bible passages instead of clear US law and Constitutional guarantees?

Jim,

Please give some examples.

Please give some examples.

Anti-sodomy laws.

Bans on marriage between gays and lesbians.

Anti-abortion laws.

Kennedy only ruled against the death penalty when applied against minors. He's upheld it elsewhere in dozens of cases.

Thus: Delay is angry because Kennedy refrained from executing minors.

Thus: Delay believes that American law requires that children be executed.

I'm sure Delay is pleased with the new Pope. Problem is, Catholic traditionalists must oppose the death penalty for the same reasons they oppose abortion.

A schism to be exploited - but it looks like the Left is busily denouncing the Pope for his failure to be liberal, rather than exploring the actual Catholic positions and discerning where they may be used against the Republicans.

Mistake, mistake, mistake.

Jim,

Sodomy laws I will give you. However, I must disagree with the other two. I really don't care about abortion, however, a lot of the population does. I believe it should be a question of state rights. But quite a few anti-abortionist are against it not for religous purposes, but rather because they would like to see the child born and given up. Others (like myself) don't like abortion as a form of birth-control, but it is necessary in certain cases.

As for gay marriage, I oppose it but not becasue of my religious beliefs.

DeLay vs. Supreme Court.....he's over the edge.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution begins:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Emphasis mine above.

So not only is International Law, i.e. Treaties signed by our country, part of our Constitution, our Constitution and therefore our judges are BOUND by such international laws signed.

And people like Delay try to come across as strict interpreters and Constructionist of the Constitution? Please.

Mr. Opus,

What International Law Treaties has the U.S. signed? Could you please give some examples.

What International Law Treaties has the U.S. signed? Could you please give some examples.

They are many; at this address, one can download a pdf listing every treaty in force as of last year.

Enjoy.

bigdog, play dumb. Good boy!

Congrats on being mentioned on CNN! :-)

This blog entry was just highlighted on CNN. As were other lefty and righty blogs.

Remember when folks just used to argue about politics on the porch or at thanksgiving dinner?

Planes, Trains, Automobiles, and Blogs.

Big log: I'm looking for evidence of you saying something that contains intelligence, please give me some examples.

And while you're at it, why don't you try doing your own research rather than asking everyone here on this blog to do it for you.

Flamethrower: LOL!!!!! VERY nice!! I almost did a 'spit take' on my monitor when I read that!!

I made this comment at Eschaton last night:

Tom DeLay has no fucking idea as to what the Internet is. Is that even possible? Is his understanding of the online world so stunted that he would actually have disdain for what it makes possible?

bigdog,

Those examples were not from Jim but that doesn't matter.

But quite a few anti-abortionist are against it not for religous purposes, but rather because they would like to see the child born and given up.

Well whopdedoo! Personally I'd like to ban lyposuction and see people made to lose the weight via exercise but I don't have a God damn thing to say about it legally. I'd also like to stop people from piercing their eybrows, tongues and lips but I have no place telling people what to do with their bodies. If abortion is banned are the states going to pay to raise all the unwanted children?

As for gay marriage, I oppose it but not becasue of my religious beliefs.

So why?

all i was pointing out is that not all anti-abortionist are anit-abortionist because they are religious wackos...thats it! I know atheists that think abortion is considered murder. When you state that people do not have the right to tell others what to do with there own bodies, the government does it all the time. Why can I not go to the drug store and purchase cocaine? It's my body, why in the hell would anyone care if I choose to abuse it with drugs?

gay marriage - in my personal opionion (since you asked) it goes against the laws of nature.

Why would they (states) not pay to raise them?...they already do.

Matt Davis,

Thank you for the website, i'm going to take a close look at the ones that deal with actual law. This should be quite interesting.

thanks again

Matt Davis,

Unfortunantly these treaties say very little in the form of previous questions about the supreme court and international law. I'm very disapointed because it was a very good argument that Mr. Opus brings up, however, I have seen very little that can actually be backed up when it comes to what Delay and Scalia were originally complaining about, and that is the capital punishment for those under 18.

Thanx MD for getting to the State website before I did.

bigdog,

gay marriage - in my personal opionion (since you asked) it goes against the laws of nature.

And if I demonstrated to you that homosexual activity is prevalent in nature, and would therefore be considered part of the "laws of nature", what would you say then?:

Google

i'm going to take a close look at the ones that deal with actual law

Most of them do. But let's take some basic ones here - Geneva and International Anti-Torture Laws. How about those?

What I was saying is they do not go into the depth of the specific question I was looking for, and that is a treaty dealing with Capital Punishment/Human Rights.

Geneva deals with militaries, and the correct conduct of soldiers during times of war...I know that one quite well.

International Torture might be able to help me find the answer i'm looking for...I will take a look. Thanks

Gay marriage, no that would not change my mind; because i know of a few animals (not many though) where "homosexuality" does take place.

We are unquestionably signatories to the international treaties banning torture. If we weren't, the Gonzalez memos would have been unnecessary. Why bother coming up with an elaborate exposition on how we aren't torturing anybody if torture is legal?

Matt,

I agree, that has never been what I'm looking for. I'm interested in the capital punishment aspect of it all. The thread deals with delay complaining about Justice Kennedy, I believe it all goes back to Kennedy's majority opionion on outlawing capital punishment for juviniles. This is the same thing Scalia said a couple days after the opinion was published.

Then Mr. Opus brought up a great point, about how the constitution states that treaties must also come into judgements of the S.C. I'm only trying to find a treaty signed by the U.S. that is still active, that mentions capital punishment as it relates to minors. I actually think I may have found it.

About the previous post, this is what I found. This was the official report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Execution, the Death Penalty, and Impunity. If you are interested in reading his official opinion based on International Law it can be found several places, however this site is by far the easiest to read.

http://www.hri.ca/fortherecord2000/vol1/execution.htm

This is the actual answer to what I have been looking for and assuming the Special Rapporteur is correct, it is easy to see that both Delay and Scalia are very very wrong. This is what he wrote.

Concerning the imposition of the death penalty, the SR recalled that various provisions of international law and UN resolutions stipulate that capital punishment will only be allowed as an extreme measure for the most serious crimes and only in cases where the highest standards of fair trial are observed. Under international law, capital punishment is not to be applied to juvenile offenders, expectant or recent mothers, and those suffering from a mental handicap or with extremely limited mental capacity. The SR stated that in many instances legal proceedings in relation to capital offences do not conform to the highest standards of impartiality, competence, objectivity and independence of the judiciary. Retentionist states were encouraged to impose a moratorium on executions pending an exhaustive enquiry regarding the capacity and independence of their legal systems. The report also notes that in a number of countries the death penalty is imposed for crimes that do not fall within the category of "the most serious crimes" and that capital punishment should not be imposed for economic and other so-called victimless offences, actions relating to prevailing moral values, or activities of a religious or political nature – including acts of treason, espionage or other vaguely defined acts usually described as "crimes against the State." The SR stated that the death penalty should under no circumstances be mandatory, regardless of the charges involved.

Lastly, thank you to Mr. Opus for bringing up such a great point and really opening my eyes to something that they were previously closed to.

You're quite welcome, bd, and thank you for displaying a gracious tone of discussion, despite the disagreements here.

When you state that people do not have the right to tell others what to do with there own bodies, the government does it all the time. Why can I not go to the drug store and purchase cocaine? It's my body, why in the hell would anyone care if I choose to abuse it with drugs?

There are a lot of people who ask that same question everyday bigdog. But your using cocaine, an addictive narcotic, clearly may have an affect on the quality of life of your fellow citizens. Please demonstrate to me how a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy could possible have any effect on someone else's (other than the fetus obviously) life.

Alcohol can also have an adverse effect on people and kills thousands of people each year when some ass decides its a good idea to see how fast he can drive home after drinking a 12 pack. Also a lot of alcoholics are abusive towards their family members when they get tanked. Cigarette smoke (2nd hand) allegedly has a huge impact on the people that are around it frequently.

I do believe that I read an article a few years back about a study about the psychiatric problems of abortion on women. So their is definantly a chance of it having a negative effect on their own lives.

bigdog,

Consumption of alcohol is strictly legislated. My point exactly. There are numerous ways that it's use and abuse can put others in danger.

Second hand smoke is the reason it is no longer permissible to smoke in bars and restaurants many places. It effects people who have not chosen to smoke. Minors are not allowed to buy tobacco and alcohol products because the state is protecting them from the potentially harmful effects until they are old enough to decide responsibly to use them for themselves.

It may be that abortion has a negative psychological effect on a woman who has one. Most women don't have abortions for the fun of it. But people make all kinds of decisions over the course of their lives that may lead to emotional distress. Are you suggesting that we should start legislating so as to prevent people from making such decisions for themselves?

So, my dad has a theory about the internet comment. He thinks DeLay is aware that members of juries aren't allowed to use the internet (or any other source) to get outside information to apply to the case they're considering--they're only allowed to consider facts introduced at the trial itself. And DeLay is so stupid that he actually thinks that means judges aren't allowed to do any research, or consider legal precedents not specifically mentioned in their transcripts.

It's a stretch, but it's the only theory I've heard so far that explains the remark.

so, why are some legal and others not? the heavy legislation of alcohol sure as hell does not prevent deaths (whether through cars, overconsumption, or whatever)

There are a hell of a lot more places that people can smoke than can't smoke.

I don't understand what you are saying hear. My point was simply that they pick and choose legislation that will best suit them. They choose to allow alcohol and cigarettes to be sold because of the enormous tax revenue it generates for both the state and federal government.

Hell, smoke a carton, drink a case, do a line of cocaine, have an abortion, and club a baby seal while you're (not you). I really don't care what people do with their body. But the government chooses to legislate everything for one reason or another. My point from the beginning is that it always comes back to a person(s) beliefs.

My point from the beginning is that it always comes back to a person(s) beliefs.

I'm not quite sure I understand your use of 'beliefs'.

The state sets speed limits. Is that based on someone's beliefs? If you're using beliefs in the sense of 'it is rational or it makes sense to me' then that's a far cry from legislating as per your religion.

i never said anything about legislation as per your religion...you did, i was saying that all legislation starts with someones belief. about the speed limit, obviously someone believes that it will be better for everybody if you drive a certain speed on the interstates. some people don't want us to drill in anwr becuae they believe it is going to hurt the environment. it goes on and on and on. the problem is that too many people are intolerant to others beliefs whether they are religious or not.

many repubs say they are pro-life...this is b.s. because they (almost all) are in favor of the death penalty.

libs say that they are pro-choice...this is b.s. they should just say they are pro-abortion, because they are against allowing parents the choice of sending their kids to a parochial school under the voucher program.

i don't give a squirt of piss about anything mentioned above...but the fact remains that they are all beliefs that are activly debated as to their good for the country, and if they should be legislated by the government.

libs say that they are pro-choice...this is b.s. they should just say they are pro-abortion, because they are against allowing parents the choice of sending their kids to a parochial school under the voucher program.

LOL! You don't think calling yourself Pro-choice means you need to think people should have a choice about everything do you?

i don't give a squirt of piss about anything mentioned above...but the fact remains that they are all beliefs that are activly debated as to their good for the country, and if they should be legislated by the government.

Exactly. For their relationship to the general welfare. Congress is empowered to legislate as necessary to maintain the general welfare. Hence speed limits, seatbelt laws, minimum age of consent laws, minimum ages on drinking, driving and smoking. All of these impact the general welfare. A woman having the choice to carry a pregnancy to birth or to terminate that pregnancy is a personal choice that has no impact on the general welfare of the nation. Those who wish to outlaw abortion do not seek to support the general welfare. They seek to stop what they consider to be a sin. That's the difference. You can play semantic games about 'beliefs' if you like but your just being intellectually dishonest if you can not recognize such a distinction.